Hyperthetical question - pulling in to the path of a cyclist

Strider590

phill99 wrote: »

It's not cut and shut.

I have a real issue with the number of cyclists that seem to think that the Highway Code doesn't apply to them. Obviously this cyclist is one of them as he is undertaking. Motorcyclists are also guilty of undertaking and are the first to kick off if they get knocked off as a result.

However, I would suggest that the car driver is primarily at fault as he should be predicting the stupidity of many of the cycling fraternity.

ILW wrote: »

Undertaking is permissable for a cyclist.

And motorbikes.....

Undertaking isn't illegal at all, it's only mentioned in the highway code section 268:

268 - Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Firstly the highway code is NOT the law, the road traffic act IS the law and doesn't mention "undertaking" or overtaking on the left.


Secondly in the highway code only the bits that state "MUST NOT" are backed up in the road traffic act.


Filtering is perfectly legal in the UK and always has been, for bike OR bicycle.

Biggest problem on this countries roads is car drivers who drive and try to enforce the "My Way Code", where:

- Cyclists must keep to cycle lanes and cannot ride 2 abreast
- Overtaking on hatch markings is illegal (broken lines or not)
- Using lane 2 when lane 1 is backed up with traffic is illegal
- Blocking a dual carriage way to stop the above is perfectly legal
- Preventing people overtaking by speeding up or swerving into them is perfectly OK
- Driving at 42mph all the time is the safest way to drive
- Drivers who overtake are all dangerous and should be tooted, gesticulated or flashed at repeatedly
- Stopping at the end of a slip lane is perfectly OK
- Any driver using their horn, wishes to start a fight and you should try to aggravate them as much as possible.
- etc etc etc blah blah blah

Strider590

In the case of the OP, all you have to do is put your nose out on the line for 10 seconds or so for any cyclists to notice, the problems occur when the driver is in such a rush to pull out.

I've had this happen when driving my car, lane 1 stationary, lane 2 clear all the way to roundabout, had some guy zip out through lane 1 and across my lane to turn across the central reservation. I clipped his bumper as he shot out without checking my lane at all, luckily no damage.

It's no different whether its a bike or a car, you MUST check.

SLITHER99

Life experience (as judged by a court!)

Even if you are stationary (as in my case, got in, started up, hadn't moved the car yet), it is still your fault!

In my case, it was ruled in favor of the cyclist (my insurance paid out).

smashingyour...

arcon5 wrote: »

If the cyclist is coming towards you, undertaking the van then no amount of checking mirrors will help.

I use the term can loosely to be honest, many types of cars also block the view to their left. And the problem is at some times of the day the only way to turn is for a vehicle to let you through.

It's interesting to hear others thoughts on such situation. Surely there has to be some case law of some sort on this kind of situation?

There won't be any case law unless someone has tested it in court.

Rover_Driver

Strider590 wrote: »

Biggest problem on this countries roads is car drivers who drive and try to enforce the "My Way Code", where:
- Overtaking on hatch markings is illegal (broken lines or not)

Overtaking is not illegal, but if you cross the lines:

Highway Code, rule 130. If the lines are broken it is a should not, if the lines are solid it is a must not - and gives the relevant legislation.

arcon5

Does the Highway Code apply equally to cyclists? If so then since the driver is not undertaking as a result of the left lane moving faster (since we're only talking about a single lane here) the cyclist had failed to follow the Highway Code, so surely could be held responsible in part or contributing towards an accident?

Apples2

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yeah right, risk serious injury or death just to make a point. Coming off a bike at ANY speed can potentially be fatal.

Then why, when a cyclist can clearly see what is happening around them, do they place themselves in harms way?
I'm not saying they try to kill themselves but cyclists, above all other road users, seem most reluctant to protect themselves.

ILW

arcon5 wrote: »

Does the Highway Code apply equally to cyclists? If so then since the driver is not undertaking as a result of the left lane moving faster (since we're only talking about a single lane here) the cyclist had failed to follow the Highway Code, so surely could be held responsible in part or contributing towards an accident?

I believe the highway code refers to filtering in this case.

Retrogamer

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Life experience (as judged by a court!)

Even if you are stationary (as in my case, got in, started up, hadn't moved the car yet), it is still your fault!

In my case, it was ruled in favor of the cyclist (my insurance paid out).

Unless you were illegally parked, or opened the door into the cyclists path i'm a little skeptical of this.

Can you divulge more details, as it seems a little vague?

arcon5

@strider, 10 seconds is a long time to be stationary in the other lane.

@smashing, I wonder if anybody knows of a case as to whether this has been tested.


The inspiration for the question is the fact I was recently in a situation whereby this nearly happened, but did take extreme care and saw the bike well before it undertook the van so nothing happened. But got me thinking anyway